Time to Put the Democratic Party on Suicide Watch?

by Selwyn Duke7/3/18
There perhaps has never been a time when the Democrats did a better job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. After being well ahead in the generic congressional polls, those numbers collapsed early this year along with the Trump/Russia/Collusion narrative. Since then, leftists have been flailing around desperately searching for an issue.

The first act was stripping Second Amendment rights after the Parkland mass shooting, starring soy boy Camera Hogg; Democrats, infamous for short, childlike memories, obviously forgot that this issue might have cost Al Gore the 2000 election. And gun grabbing doesn’t poll any better today. The second act is the treatment of those invading our country (a.k.a. illegal migrants), starring a hapless little Honduran girl used as a human prop by Time magazine (never mind that her father has a good job back home as a boat captain). Now, related to this, Democrats have a new issue: abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

A week ago this was recognized as a fringe idea even among staunch Democrats, the fringiest fringe around, but then something happened: One Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shocked the Democrat establishment by defeating the favored 20-year incumbent, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), in Tuesday’s Democrat primary in New York’s 14th district. She ran, in part, on abolishing ICE, so now this has become the “[n]ew rallying call for 2020 Democrats,” as the AP put it.

Now, I really shouldn’t say this — I mean, I really shouldn’t. I want nothing more than for the Democrats to continue marching toward their cliff, but, alas, honest commentary is my bag. And here’s reality: If you leftists think avowed socialist Cortez’ win had mainly to do with abolishing ICE, you’re putting your electoral chances on ice. Cortez won, largely, for a simple reason.

Bigotry.

She had the right profile: a young, female, Hispanic in a district 70 percent non-white — a figure no doubt even higher among its Democrat electorate — and in which the incumbent was a wizened old white fellow (Crowley is 56 and looks 66). It helped that she’s attractive and articulate, but she shamelessly played the group-identity card, too, sending a message that no one should vote for an old white male. She even retweeted the picture of an attorney who expressed the sentiment that “all white people are racist.”

The Washington Post pointed this phenomenon out, by the way, running a Wednesday article titled “The worst thing to be in many Democratic primaries? A white male candidate.” The paper writes, “Democratic voters have been picking women, racial minorities, and gay men and lesbians in races around the country at historic rates.”

Is this a surprise? I wrote years ago about what I dubbed “Cultural affirmative action”; this is the phenomenon whereby people will, often unconsciously, show preference for or advantage members of so-called “victim groups” simply because of their association with those groups. Cultural affirmative action is especially intense among the Democrat electorate, which comprises many who wish to virtue signal and buttress their own self-image by bearing the new “white man’s burden.”

That is, when they are white. Much of that electorate is non-white and Hispanic. Regardless, anti-white bigotry is intense among Democrats, which is why you hear about mythical “white privilege” and the alleged evils of our white ancestors. And if the Left hates that today’s civilization has been shaped by “dead white males,” it’s easy to understand why they wouldn’t want tomorrow’s to be shaped by live ones.

I expounded upon this phenomenon years ago, mind you. When ex-North Carolina senator John Edwards was running against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democrat nomination, I pointed out that there simply was no way the Democrat electorate was going to choose a white man over a woman and a “black” guy. He was wasting his time. And, sure enough, a subsequent poll of all Americans (not just Democrats) bore this out, showing that while Obama’s race made six percent of Americans less likely to vote for him, it made nine percent more likely to do so.

(By the way, this is why you, Governor Andy Cuomo, and you, Little Big Gulp — a.k.a. soda-warrior Michael Bloomberg — have no chance of capturing the 2020 Democrat nomination. Zero, zilch, nada. You’re being hoisted on your own petards, as your grand political ambitions will be devoured by the politically correct monster you helped create. And, yes, I am experiencing laughing-out-loud schadenfreude.)

As for Cortez, she beat Crowley by a whopping 57 to 42 percent; if Democrats suppose that more than a handful of points of this are attributable to her anti-ICE position, I say they’re crazy. Heck, I’d think that many of her constituents, upon hearing about abolishing ICE, would only ask, “But what about the warming climate?” (to quote an Internet commenter who made this quip).

Moreover, the Big Apple represents the rest of America politically the way it does scenery-wise. If you think you can extrapolate what happened there to most political races, well, I have a forested mountain range in Manhattan to sell you.

Democrats likely have an emotional impediment precluding them from being intellectually honest here: They don’t want to come to terms with their own bigotry (liberals aren’t big on self-knowledge). The reality, however, is that Cortez won over low-information voters by exploiting their prejudices.

But, hey, what do I know? I’m just an idiot oblivious to reality — and a white male, too. So by all means, my Democrat friends, please run on a pro-illegal-migration, anti-ICE platform. A 28-year-old big city socialist thinks it’s a great idea.

17 Responses to Time to Put the Democratic Party on Suicide Watch?

Banning ICE is a notion that illustrates why the Demagogues are moving so rapidly leftward. Someone comes up with some idiotic radical notion, like banning ICE. It catches on among a few thousand radicals on social media. Eventually it gets noticed by the synoptic media, who approve of it as they always do everything anyone on the left ever proposes (“no enemies on the left” now means “no disagreements to the left”). Soon a few radical leftist Demagogues start proposing it (it helps that leftists can only emote, and thus never engage in rational thought). Activists increasingly support it, which makes more and more Demagogues do so. Eventually it becomes a leftist consensus policy, and thus a litmus test, at which point dissent is no longer permissible.

Meanwhile, the Leftist Unholy Trinity — activists and donors (on the left, donors are activists), newsliars, and the politicians who obey the other two groups — is at war with whoever Trump names to replace the Weathervane. Barrett seems to be their favorite target at present, and is already the target of two major smears. So from the Schadenfreude angle, she would probably be the best choice. She’s also a good choice otherwise — if the GOP holds firm, reminds voters that the basic smears are simply reflexive smears used against every GOP nominee, and is thus able to confirm her despite total Demagogue resistance.

When something like this can happen in the Marines, it is clear that P.C. insanity has rotted out the very core of our country.

Trump needs to step in and re-instate this man and fire those who brought the charges and those who relieved him of his command. This type of thing stinks of politicization like that imposed on the Red Army. Politics being more important than battle preparedness.

This might be fair if he had a number of homosexuals, especially militants, in his unit. But what would such people be doing in the military, especially the Marines? Oh, that’s right, the Defense Department under the Obama Gang was concerned with social justice, not being able to fight most effectively.

You’re right, Trump needs to get Mattis to fix this. Quickly. Either that, or soon we won’t be able to tell the difference between the military and the Catholic Church.

In March of 1970 I joined Marines and did basic at MCRD San Diego. Unlike the average enlistee I was already in my 20s and had a year at Stanford under my belt. And, my father was a career Marine; the old Gunny, who was my DI, was a friend of his. He was my dad’s E-3 in Korea.

We all knew and understood that homosexuals were in the barracks, and generally knew who they were. As a general rule when they finished basic they were sent to desk jobs and not combat units. Many of them, in spite of their sexual orientation had successful careers in the Corps as listed and officers. Don’t ask, don’t tell was unofficial but very much the prevailing philosophy.

It was the same at CIA, although with yearly polygraphs the don’t tell became a moot point. CIA did not care, all they cared about was a reasonable level of truthfulness.

Clinton formalized “don’t ask, don’t tell” in one of his few good moves. It allowed for the possibility of a celibate homosexual (or a very discreet one who never tried to hit on a fellow soldier) serving, often with distinction.

It was also reasonable because a known homosexual would be someone whose sexual identity was more important than his identity as a soldier, or one who troubled his mates. Either way, someone very undesirable. This was my main concern over admitting open homosexuals, though there were other issues (such as sexual privacy in combat conditions) as well.

My big concern with this case is the speech control which is aiming at mind control.

Calling someone a name has become as bad as assault and battery as long as it deals with one of the left’s protected groups. This is not far from making thought a crime.

Next, Marines will be required to carry the equivalent of Mao’s “Little Red Book” in order to insure they don’t deviate from the path of correct thought. Clearing there are some NKVD types infecting the Marines.

The link will take you to an interesting juxtaposition on the subject. Perhaps both are extreme, but the Malaysian case has nothing to do with speech and is only taking place in one Malaysian State and will not undermine the defense of the country.

Malaysia is Islamist, as the article indicates (though it never says so outright in a leftist journal), so this is hardly a surprise. I would guess that the reason that this is so rare is that most lesbians there know better than to be caught doing it.

I am not sure I would call Malaysia Islamist. The majority of the population (abt 60%) is Muslim, but there are many who are not particularly religious. As I recall, only one or two States are completely ruled by Sharia law.

I would say that Islam has become more politicized than when I lived in S.E.Asia. The last Prime Minister, who is under investigation for monumental corruption, stirred up Muslims in order to bring out the vote in the last election. He lost.

The two women in question could either not control themselves or were none too bright. To have sexual intercourse in an automobile in Trengganu beggars the imagination.